CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 31457(U)
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2008

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiff Dennis Párente, an operating engineer, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while investigating a malfunctioning booster fan in an office leased by defendant Chase. The original Supreme Court ruling denied Párente's partial summary judgment motion under Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed the complaint. This Appellate Division order modified that decision, finding that Párente's activity constituted repair, not routine maintenance, thus making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable and imposing absolute liability. Consequently, Párente's motion for summary judgment on this claim was granted, and the defendants' cross-motion for dismissal was denied. Other claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6), 200, and common-law negligence were properly dismissed, and triable issues of fact remain concerning a third-party indemnification action.

Ladder FallBooster Fan RepairLabor Law § 240(1)Absolute LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkplace SafetyWorker InjuryEmergency RepairThird-Party ActionIndemnification Claim
References
6
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. M2022-01719-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2024

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This appeal arose from a lawsuit brought by parents and an education-focused parents’ rights organization against the Williamson County Board of Education. They challenged the Board's Wit & Wisdom curriculum, asserting it violated Tennessee laws restricting Common Core instructional materials and prohibiting certain concepts in public schools. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the plaintiffs' lack of standing and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for one claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims by a family who had left the school system and upheld the dismissal of the prohibited concepts claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's finding of lack of standing for other plaintiff families and the parents' rights organization, and it also reversed the dismissal of the Common Core claim, remanding that part of the case for further proceedings.

Education LawSchool CurriculumCommon Core StandardsProhibited ConceptsStanding LawAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionJudicial ReviewDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefTennessee Court of Appeals
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This dissenting opinion addresses a case concerning the permanent termination of parental rights for an infant, Leon, Jr., who had been in the physical custody of foster parents since 19 months of age. The dissent argues that the St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services consistently undermined the natural parental relationship, encouraging the foster parents and failing to make diligent efforts to assist the natural parents in maintaining their connection with the child. It criticizes the agency for not carrying out a plan for reintegration and for encouraging the infant's attachment to the foster parents while limiting natural parental visitation. The opinion asserts that the record is inadequate to support the termination of parental rights, highlighting that the natural parents had previously had their other children returned to them and had cooperated with caseworkers. The dissent concludes that the administrative agency's conduct amounted to an abuse of the temporary placement system and votes to reverse the order, seeking dismissal of the petition for permanent termination of parental rights and remittal for consideration of continued custody.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Custody DisputeFoster Care SystemChild WelfareFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildJudicial DissentDepartment of Social ServicesFamily Court ActParent-Child Relationship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2006

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Family Court, Bronx County, which dismissed a derivative neglect petition against respondent parents. The petition was based on a prior finding of child abuse in 2002, stemming from the 1999 death of their three-month-old baby, Kadiatou, due to blunt impact to the head and multiple skull fractures. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, finding that the prior abuse finding was inconclusive regarding the parents' direct role and was sufficiently remote in time. Furthermore, the court noted significant positive changes in the parents' behavior, their successful completion of parenting skills courses, individual psychotherapy, and continued engagement with family services. The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) failed to present specific evidence linking Kadiatou's injuries to intentional parental conduct or demonstrating a continued faulty understanding of parental duties.

Child NeglectChild AbuseDerivative NeglectParental DutiesChange in CircumstancesRes Ipsa LoquiturMedical Examiner FindingsHomicideSkull FracturesFamily Court Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 1985

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Saint Dominic’s Home petitioned to terminate the parental rights of a mother and father for five children due to permanent neglect. The Family Court initially dismissed these petitions, citing the agency’s insufficient efforts regarding psychological testing for the parents. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the agency had made diligent efforts despite the parents' uncooperative behavior and repeated failures to maintain contact, plan for their children, and utilize agency services. The court emphasized that diligent efforts do not guarantee parental success, and the parents' prolonged failure to inform the agency of their whereabouts also served as an independent ground for termination. The petitions were granted, and the case was remanded for a dispositional hearing.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectDiligent EffortsSocial Services LawFamily Court ActFoster CareVisitation FailureParental PlanningPsychological TestingMethadone Addiction
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County that terminated the parental rights of Jennifer NN. (mother) and Frederick NN. (father) to their child, Adam NN., pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, on the grounds of mental retardation. Adam was removed from his parents' care shortly after birth. Despite respondents' consistent attendance at supervised visitations, their parenting skills showed limited improvement. Psychological evaluations indicated both parents had subaverage intellectual functioning; the father's IQ was 50 (moderately mentally retarded), and the mother's was 63 (mildly mentally retarded). Experts testified that due to their cognitive deficiencies and impaired adaptive behavior, neither parent could provide proper and adequate care for Adam, who also has special needs, without significant risk of neglect. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of parental rights.

Parental rights terminationmental retardationchild neglectSocial Services LawIQ assessmentchild welfarespecial needs childFamily Court appealparental fitness
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This is an accelerated appeal concerning the termination of parental rights for three children of Zulema Frias and Ricardo Corrales. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (the Department) filed the petition, and a jury found that the parent-child relationship should be terminated, naming the Department as managing conservator. The parents appealed, citing evidentiary error regarding the admission of police reports and the court's failure to appoint the maternal grandmother as managing conservator. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the police reports were cumulative evidence and the jury's decision to appoint the Department was supported by legally sufficient evidence, considering factors such as the parents' drug abuse, history of violence, and the grandmother's inability to provide adequate care.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodySubstance AbuseChild NeglectEvidentiary ErrorHearsayBest Interest of the ChildManaging ConservatorshipFamily LawAccelerated Appeal
References
39
Case No. NN-13044-11, NN-13045-11
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2014

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The Monroe County Department of Human Services petitioned to terminate the parental rights of Nadir B. to his sons, Xavier and Amir, alleging abandonment for failing to visit or communicate with them or the agency during a six-month period. The court heard testimony from caseworkers, a foster parent, and the paternal grandmother, Tamara B., who also had a pending custody petition for the children and was in constant contact with the Department. The court found that the Department's efforts to contact the father were limited and that the paternal grandmother was a viable resource for the children. Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioner failed to prove that the father evinced an intent to forgo his parental rights, especially given his support for his mother's custody petition and his court appearances. The petition for termination of parental rights was therefore dismissed.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentFoster CarePaternal CustodyInterstate Compact ApplicationFamily CourtMonroe CountyChild NeglectCommunication with AgencyViable Resource
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 3,721 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational